Here, the water is not necessarily a miraculous substance that directly changes our spirit; but is a symbol, which dramatizes the experience of conversion. And in that way, helps us change our minds or spirits, to be sure.

Honestly, its been years since I informally researched this type of topic, as an undergrad and then grad student; in part in theology, but rather more through Anthropology. But briefly, Anthropology sees these events as in effect, “rituals,” or “rites of initiation.” Those terms, combined with the word “baptism,” should be adequate to search for related materials on the internet, or a scholarly data base.

Roughly speaking though, the topic was also pursued in theology, under the notion of in part, either accepting supernaturalism: accepting miracles at face value, and accepting mirculous substances, and so forth; like the water in Baptism somehow working directly on our psyche by magic or miracle. Or taking miracles, from the days of even Philo, not literally. But as metaphors. Especially as metaphors for mental or spiritual things. While Religious or Biblical Criticism, much of it, attempts to favor explanations consistent with both the Bible, and science.

In any case, for many sermons today, in fact, the water is not a magical substance changing things physically; but somehow works spiritually. Or on our “spirit.” Or “mind.” Which, by the way, we can accept in scientific -based theology.

In part my model here relies on a traditional major classificatory division, in many theologies; between a 1) literal belief in miracles, changing physical things; vs. the 2) spiritual understanding of them. Our list moves roughly at first, from a more magical/supernatural mirculuous idea, to less so. As we move down the list, baptism is less about making physical things change by miracles; and more about changing our mind or spirit. This is not only more consistent with science; but also with many theologies. The attempt to get away from literal, physical miracles, is why for example, some of our pastors cited above, from ordinary sermons, suggest that it is not the water itself, or magical substance, but the Holy “spirit” that really makes the important change. While finally even the “spirit” can be seen in more scientific ways.

In my list, I carry the metaphorical/spiritual theology further, with an Anthropological variation on this traditional idea of the mental- or spiritual-change. Real Anthropology, as a science, does not favor accepting “supernatural” entities or miracles either, per se; but looks to see if there is another explanation consistent with science. In the case of Baptism, we can explain the efficacy of Baptism, without positing supernatural substances. Simply: the rite or ritual of baptism might symbolize and dramatise – and therefore heighten – the moment when our minds and convictions, our spirit, shift toward Jesus. Like most Art might do. So again, the effect is not magical, or even necessarily supernatural; but can be explained by the dramatic (even threatrical) effect of rituals, in helping us to simply change our minds, or “spirits.” No magic or supernaturalism here at all.

And in this way, about midway through this list, we have an explanation for/proof of the effectiveness of Baptism, in a way that I would suggest, is both 1) totally consistent with the Bible itself (as I show elsewhere, in a yet-unpublished book); and yet at the same time 2) does not contradict, but rather is confirmed by, science.

Which is an important moment; here we have a Christianity not contradicted by, but confirmed by, science. A Christianity that is 1) consistent with the BIble; 2) consistent with Theology. And a theology that also 3) really works, in a way that empirical science can verify. (Anthropology can prove that rituals are effective).

Among other secondary gains? Now the formerly split, dualistically separated elements of human thought – religion and science; heaven and earth; spirit and body – here begin to come together again. Ending a contradiction in human thought, among other things.

But on the way to doing that, we looked here for earlier models of this progression. And historically (to some extent; in obscure corners to be sure; church doctrines and early anthropology etc.) there can be found a spectrum of various attempts, to do what we are working on here. There were many explanations, both in popular ideas, and in serious theology, and in Anthropology, to explain how Baptism works; and many attempted to do this in a way more and more closely approaching what a real Anthropological science could confirm.

These attempts I have placed in a spectrum outlined above. Mainly, the issue is, how are the various theologies of Baptism compatible or not, with Reason and Science. The main question is, is it the water itself? As a magical substance? Or is the important thing, the change in our heart or “spirit.” Here I outline some traditional attempts to arrive at a scientific understanding; beginning with the least, to the most (and then beyond).

The non-supernatural, change-in-the-mind theology, has two huge advantages: importantly, it is not only 1) preferred in many “spiritual” churches; but 2) is also more defensible to science. And it therefore is the preferred explanation here. Here we examine a series of beliefs, from most magical/supernatural to least (and then beyond?). And suggest that the earlier explanations look too much like belief in supernatural magic. While say, mid-spectrum explanations, spiritual/rational explanations, look better.

Why prefer non-magical explanations? Even if you don’t care for science in its own right (which you should, sitting at a computer), then notice this: for one thing, “magic” is opposed not only by science, but also significantly, by the Bible itself. Which warned of “false Christs” and magicians,” “sorcerers,” “deceiving” the whole world (Rev. 13, etc.), with “magic,” “enchantments,” “illusions,” and “delusions.” To fix this, our mid-level explanations dispell magic; by making sure our explanations correspond not only to modern “spiritual” Christianity, but also to anti-magical science (with some tweaks, elsewhere).

Why outline all this, here and now? It is important of course, to get the right idea of Baptism in mind, before one is baptised. Then too, all this also ties in to my own idea, in another part of this blog, of what a REAL “Theological Anthropology” should be.

Theologians have historically conceptualized what baptism is, and how it works, in many different ways. The different ways theologians or religious scholars (and ordinary folks) think of Baptism, we might arrange here on a scale; from say, the most Magical, to the most Rational. Or from the most “believing” or “faithful,” to the LEAST believing or faithful.

Which if any of the following characterizations of Baptism, is correct? Or the most common? Which would you personally choose? Be prepared to steel yourself when considering them; the last options especially, will seem rather shocking to a believer. But in the interest of including all common academic views, we need to consider even the last ones.

Here is a spectrum of different charaterizations of Baptism, from say, “most believing” to “least believing” characterizations. Which if any, seems most defensible or best?

1) The water is a good “Magic”al object; it touches us, and its supernatural, “magical” powers, transform us into a different person.

2) The water is a “Miracle” substance; it touches us, and miraculously or supernaturally, transforms us into a different person.

3) The water is Miraculous; it touches and transforms us … but only if we ALSO happen to get an additional Miraculous sustance, The Holy Spirit.

4) The water is a symbol; it stands for immersing ourselves in the more mirculous substance of the Holy Spirit.

5) The water is a symbol, standing for immersion in the spirit; the “Spirit” just means having the right ideas, the “spirit” of, God. Baptism works, if we get the water … but especially if we get the idea or “spirit” of it all.

6) This is an ancient, symbolic ritual, that can introduce some to the better ideas or “spirit,” of a better morality.

(Finally, there are even some rather negative speculations:)

7) This is is an ancient – and primitive – ritual.

8) This is an ancient and destructive superstition, that is essentially belief in magic; those who believe in it, become superstitious people following magicians. Their belief in Magic, will cripple their practical Reason and understanding. They will mistakenly rely on this false belief in Magic, to bring them happiness and prospersity. But because their belief in magic and miracle, is deceived, they will remain crippled, ignorant. And incapable of taking the more practical steps they need, to improve their minds, and lives.

9) This is a destructive superstition, which we need to end.

Believe it or not, these are actually a number of ways that different theologians – and/or religious scholars – have conceptualized religion; specifically baptism. Arranged on a scale from most believing and accepting, to most critical.

Which if any of these views would you support? Or which which would you most like to discuss/refute? Or would you like to add your own option?

Before becoming baptised, would it be useful to consider any of this?

Immersion in water can be a partially-effective symbol of immersing ourselves in a new community; or better, in the being of God.

At the same time though, the water is only a symbol; not a magical substance.

And ultimately the real submersion, is into the spirit, Holy Spirit, being, of God. (Churches, even alternative ones, often being unreliable).

So that immersion in water is in part, useful; but in part, can be very misleading. Especially to those trained to believe in magical substances, and magical objects.

First, the idea of baptismal instruction presupposes not only the importance of baptism, but that baptism is in some senses (maybe in all) a sacrament. With this I’m okay. This being the case, the early church’s understanding of baptism is one in which baptism was not simply symbol of faith, but a practice in inclusion to an alternative community, one which may be juxtaposed to the empire. And I think this is incredibly important even today, however, it is overshadowed by “turn-or-burn” evangelism.

Second, we cannot understand baptism without first being trained and formed by the alternative community claiming us. As a result, baptism before instruction cannot make sense. It can only be a symbol without any substantial meaning.

I think too that we ought to see basptism as it was originally seen, as a sumberging of one’s self. And I believe this is best seen in the sumberging of one’s self into the alternative community and reality of the Church. Perhaps I’m stretching the analogy too far though?